Son Of COICA: PROTECT IP Act Will Allow For Broad Censorship Powers, Even Granted To Copyright Holders

from the censorship dept

As expected, it appears that a new version of COICA is on its way, and it looks like those behind it have ramped up their efforts to make the positioning sound better. Rather than COICA, it's been renamed the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act" or the.... PROTECT IP Act (don't gag). And, rather than actually taking into account the concerns many had with COICA, this new bill is even more draconian, in that it has a private right of action. That is, beyond just letting the Justice Department declare that a site is "rogue" and then getting a court order that would require all sorts of third parties censor that site, this new law will also let rights holders take action. That is, unlike COICA, PROTECT IP has a "private right of action."

The Act similarly authorizes a rights holder who is the victim of the infringement to bring an action against the owner, registrant, or Internet site dedicated to infringement, whether domestic or foreign, and seek a court order against the domain name registrant, owner, or the domain name.

To try to make this palatable, the bill says that the court's permission is needed to serve such an order (though, these kinds of things are frequently rubber stamped) and it will only apply to payment processors and ad networks, rather than ISPs and search engines. The DOJ version, however, can apply against ISPs, search engines, ad providers and payment processors.

Oh, and if you noticed that "search engines" included in there and wondered, yes, that's different from COICA as well. Beyond just requiring these other service providers from blocking service, this new law will require search engines to censor sites out of their index.

The bill claims it includes "safeguards," but those "safeguards" are that after the court order has been issued and all the third party service providers (payment process, ad networks, ISPs, search engines) have been required to block service to the site, the site can "petition the court to suspend or vacate the order." That seems a bit late in the process, doesn't it?

Since we've seen many of the "seized" domains simply move to new sites, the PROTECT IP Act also says that any site that just moves to a new domain, the same draconian censorship requirements apply to those new sites as well. On top of that, it pressures online service providers to voluntarily censor, saying that such services are "immunized from damages" for taking action against a site they believe is "dedicated to infringing activities."

Oh, one area where the law backs down is that it no longer focuses on seizing domains. That is, it no longer talks about requiring registrars and registers to be subject to this law. But the reason they've done so is because they say that Homeland Security's successful domain seizing means that such powers would be redundant...

Once again, what we have here is a terrible bill that provides for broad censorship power not just to the government, but potentially to private companies as well, against sites which they accuse of being dedicated to infringement.

When do we give up?

When will we reach the point that we give up and let the system destroy itself? I just wish there were a sane place to go to. Maybe we can set up a technologically-friendly paradise in a hidden valley somewhere, since all the other countries seem to be just as self-destructive as ours.

Re: Is the bill's text released anywhere yet?

this has always been and will continue to be about control. the internet has been free since it's birth and that is what governments dont like. they need to be able to control everything and then get as much tax from it and its users as possible, as fast as possible, for as long as possible. giving what is basically a 'carte blanche' to the copyright/entertainment industries is disgraceful, especially when the ridiculous reasons used have been proven groundless. any and every excuse under the sun is not going to make these morons last any longer. and just what do they think they can do against a site that has nothing to do with USA? they going to start a war over it? my even bigger concerns than this crock of shit is, just what is the USA going to try to claim it has control over next? what country is going to be pressurized into doing what USA wants next? what country is going to be forced to crap on it's own citizens next, just to keep USA happy? if any country asked, let alone tried to pressure the USA into doing something that would benefit that country, it's businesses or it's citizens, against what the USA wanted to do, what would be said? a resounding 'FUCK OFF' would be what was sent from The White House, without any shadow of doubt at all!!

Re:

By chance, do you have a link to the text of this bill?

The text of the bill is not yet out, but this is the document that is being used in Congress to summarize what is in the text and was written by the same people who wrote the text. I can't reveal where it came from, but I can vouch for the fact that this document is from the same people writing the bill.

Re: Re:

and Obama promised more transparency, yet, here we are, having to get information (that has nothing to do with security) from leaks.

To be fair, it's the legislative branch that's being secretive here and Obama probably has little control over that. But who wants to bet that Obama will simply sign the bill before giving the public (and by public I do not mean the corporations) a reasonable period of time to review it first?

So in terms of sites, the Internet will move to a non-site model (distributed.) We already have portions of this, the reminaing portions are distributing DNS, but really the current Internet could support working around this bill without Distributed DNS.

In terms of search providers, Google already indexes faster than any single IP-holding entity can respond to IP infringement claims. In fact, Google is how most IP-containing firms FIND the illegal material! This is literally a cat/mouse game, because how will they find the infringing material without a search indexer discovering it?

What about Cyveillance?

There are some entities crawling the web looking for IP violations. Specifically, Cyveillance. Those sheepdips don't even bother looking for robots.txt, much less honor it. They're as bad a Baidu.com in terms of scroll through web servers, and that's not ironical at all.

Re: What about Cyveillance?

If they do not look at robots.txt, they would be very easy to tarpit or block. It is quite easy to distinguish a bot from a human (just put a hidden link the bot will follow but the human will not see, and block it on robots.txt so legitimate bots do not become trapped by it).

Re:

This has not one DAMN thing to do with protecting artists and creators. This is all about protecting middlemen who have nothing to do with the creation process.

This is about protecting Doug Morrison, who remains ignorant on the technology changing the music industry.

It's protecting Kaz Hirai from actually securing the PS3 by trying to go after individual hackers.

It's about protecting the clueless people in the world that have no idea how the world is changing but want to shift us back to a time that they were in charge.

That time is no longer here. We have digital files on the internet. There is filesharing. There is cloud services where you don't have to pay one DIME to Google. Companies can add service and value by making this less of a hassle to consumers.

The world does not need more litigation. It needs more companies to break out and find innovation over litigation.

This only impedes the progress. But I guess anything to win a bet must make you feel quite special. I'll only shake my head when you are proven wrong.

Re: Re:

Jay,

It's about more than middle men. It's also about the hundreds of thousands of middle class workers working behind the camera on motion pictures and television production. These people don't have 9-5 jobs, they move from project to project. Moreover, their health and retirement benefits are partly funded by the proceeds from downstream revenues. The very revenue stream eroded by piracy.

I don't buy any of the spurious arguments about due process and censorship. PROTECT IP Act targets those sites that take the copyrighted content of others and monetizes it for their own financial benefit. It's not free speech that the piracy apologists want, it's f-r-e-e speech- as it they don't want to pay.

Scumbag profiteers like tvshack.com get busted and reappear as tvshack.bz for the sole purpose of evading the US judicial system so they can continue to personally profit from the creative output wrongfully looted from others.

But you can expect the professional apologist Astroturf groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT etc to come out in full force to defend FOREIGN criminals with all kinds of bogus constitutional and due process arguments. I wish just once the professional apologists would consider what it takes to make a living as creator, but they don't really give a shit either because it's all about entitlement to free content no matter what the cot to creative professionals.

Re: Re: Re:

And I disagree.

" It's also about the hundreds of thousands of middle class workers working behind the camera on motion pictures and television production. These people don't have 9-5 jobs, they move from project to project. Moreover, their health and retirement benefits are partly funded by the proceeds from downstream revenues. The very revenue stream eroded by piracy. "

They got paid the one time on set. They move from project to project. You're still going to need to boom mike operator, the sound producer, the director and the actors who make more than minimum wage. I'm not hearing the NY piracy campaign for one minute when Rick Cotton is also the same man who says that corn farmers will save the movie industry. Yes, because of your statement about "piracy apologists" I used a link from a "piracy network".

Small suggestion before I continue. Rhetorical words such as "piracy apologist", "freetard", "copytards", or "copyright maximalist" are poor form in a debate and I would recommend you stop using such words. It makes me believe you're more interested in using spouting nonsense than actually debating the topics here.

"Scumbag profiteers like tvshack.com get busted and reappear as tvshack.bz for the sole purpose of evading the US judicial system so they can continue to personally profit from the creative output wrongfully looted from others."

*facepalm*

TVshack collects movies. But someone being able to watch a movie on that site has absolutely NOTHING to do with watching it on Hulu, or preventing a copyright holder from providing their own showing. Also, I'd advise you to look into Rojadirecta, which was considered legal in Spain, but had no judicial hearing for itself here in the US.

Finally, I'm not a big fan of the ex officio powers or stronger enforcement laws because of those due process issues. Looking at the bigger picture, the burden of civil litigation used to be squarely on the copyright holder. Now, this is on anyone that can make an accusation (along with a LOT of money).

I contend that the copyright litigation is becoming more and more a socio-economic barrier to trade. This is proving ever more true, when all economic data is proving that LESS IP laws benefit our society greatly.

"But you can expect the professional apologist Astroturf groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT etc to come out in full force to defend FOREIGN criminals with all kinds of bogus constitutional and due process arguments."

I'm sorry, what? Did you seriously contend that the EFF and PK are the very likes of the Copyright Alliance, Balanced Copyright for Canada or even Music United? Are you seriously placing them in the same category of places that have little to no open dialogue, who have "members" that happen to have jobs within the industry, and use very similar rhetoric and propagandist speech in regards to attacking a third party? If so, you're losing any respect of your message that I may have had for you.

And your "foreign" criminals claim is an outright lie. Piracy is not about locking up people with websites. It's not about taking down a website you don't like. It's not about assisting the government in censoring people for putting up material in an unauthorized manner.

It's recognizing that the rules have changed and you have to change right along with it. The more you use rules to try to effect behavior the harder people are going to resist.

" I wish just once the professional apologists would consider what it takes to make a living as creator---"

Enough. A creator can make money and there's plenty of examples. The cost of certain industries are going down and more artists are becoming self aware. More creators are making pdfs and selling them on their website. I have friends who make music on the side, put it up on Facebook, Ustream, and Myspace just to make fans. They connect and this legislation doesn't do a damn thing to help them. The abundance of music is new material to be used in a variety of ways.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Due Process: Their is a notion that a website that offers subscriptions and/or is supported by ads that offers the copyrighted works of others is entitled to a hearing before an action is taken. That's bullshit. As a matter of law, a seizure is analogous to an arrest. You don't get a hearing before you are arrested. Rule 65 protections are in effect so there are no due process concerns by first amend scholars such as the one who testified before the House Judiciary IP Subcommittee.

Free Speech: Stopping someone from monetizing content owned by others is hardly a breech of free speech. Even if a site had some non-infringing content, if the primary purpose is to disseminate copyrighted content it's not entitled to cry free speech. If 10% of the goods in a pawn shop were stolen and that shop persisted in selling stolen property, it would be shut down... entirely. Why should it differ online?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, goody, another guy who thinks it's OK to take down sites with mostly protected speech, without following the law, just because they believe piracy is the cause of all the world's problems.

It's tiresome at this point. Until you stop equating copyright infringement with "stolen goods," and recognize that Rule 65 does not somehow trump 17 USC 512, you're talking out your ass.

While we're at it, how is piracy ruining the "workers working behind the camera on motion pictures," when the motion picture industry had their highest-grossing year in history in 2009, and their second-highest in 2010? If any jobs are in fact being lost, how is that the fault of "pirates," rather than the bad business decisions of industry executives, just like e.g. the auto industry?

The whole "piracy" attack is a sham. It's trotted out whenever legacy industries want to blackmail other industries into paying them money (e.g. "radio is a form of piracy"), and a handy excuse to keep screwing over their workers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Karl,

the bill is about sites DEDICATED to infringing activity- not containing mostly protected speech. Clearly even you can see the subtle difference.

And I don't know why I equate getting the intellectual property of another that is offered for sale without paying for it with stealing. Parse words all you like and call it "infringing" if it helps you sleep better at night.

The workers behind the camera receive residuals and their health insurance and retirement are derived from downstream revenues. The very revenues eroded by piracy. But fundamentally I reject a judgment of wealth or poverty as justification for stealing. Sorry.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What revenues eroded?
He stated clearly the film industry had their greatest more profitable years despite claims to the contrary, are you saying the industry could have gained more if piracy didn't came along?

Seems to me you just don't want to hear anything that contradicts your flawed logic.

Also we all know that "dedicated to infringing activity" is just a hallow box that will be filled with anything that those people don't like legal or otherwise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A motion picture makes about 75% of its total earnings from downstream revenues (other than N. AMerican box office) The problem isn't people sneking into theaters its people making (and sometime selling) perfect digital replicas. That is what erodes downstream revenue. It's those revenues that support workers health and retirement plans.

Disingenuous is disingenuous

"the bill is about sites DEDICATED to infringing activity- not containing mostly protected speech. Clearly even you can see the subtle difference."

By whose definition is a site dedicated to infringing activity? The Pirate Bay has been around for how long, and yet people are still bitching about the FACT that it's around mainly as a joke to the industry? How many millions is it costing them when the recording industry AND the movie industry could make more by offering their own. Damn. Torrents for sale?

Oh, you must mean the little guys that are bullied around because the RIAA have DA LAW on their side? The places such as Ninjavideo, taken down because it was a small community that showed videos on the site. Did piracy even stop? Or is it safer to just assume that's unmet demand, gauge what people are watching and give the people the movies they want?

"And I don't know why I equate getting the intellectual property of another that is offered for sale without paying for it with stealing. Parse words all you like and call it "infringing" if it helps you sleep better at night."

Because someone has already paid for the product and it's a digital copy. You have no legal rights to actually do what you're asking and obfuscating the issue of why people want to sample a product, watch movies in the format of their choice, or avoid the artificial scarcities that have been put in place of valid ways to do business.

Let's take your IP and look at what people have wanted:

Movies and TV shows - People have wanted to remain current with their TV series. People want to avoid bad movies. The Expendables made a shitton of money, and yet they're suing people for a damn download? Here's a question for you, what's the proper response to piracy? Hint, litigation of mass proportions and trying to get them to settle similar to Righthaven does NOT good policy make.

"The workers behind the camera receive residuals and their health insurance and retirement are derived from downstream revenues. The very revenues eroded by piracy. But fundamentally I reject a judgment of wealth or poverty as justification for stealing. Sorry."

No, they don't. I hope that my other post comes up arguing this, but if not, I see this as a ploy for sympathy from the audience.

The boom mikes are still going to be needed, the sound operator still gets paid for their one project. Actors still get residuals (Source), along with their heirs, increasing the cost of a movie. And you know what, this brings up a very point you seem to miss. The artists themselves are getting away from the industry. Just in case that's too much for you, 3 minute version. It makes no sense to sit here and say "it's for the artists" when there will be a lot more that choose to go the indie route (which is very viable now) to support themselves.

"A motion picture makes about 75% of its total earnings from downstream revenues"

Not the consumer's fault when movies are set up to fail.

"That is what erodes downstream revenue."

No. Hollywood is the epitome of a top down structure. They can't understand filesharing or that people want to sample. They don't understand the internet, so they want to kill it off. What people do with their money is just that. Their choice. They paid for the connection, they can find free games on Newgrounds, Kongregate, or the Pirate Bay (guess which one gets your attention?). It shouldn't matter to them, because if people like a game, they will pay for it. If they like a service they will pay more for a product. And if they like a movie, they will pay for it. You have to give them a reason to. That's your objective as a film maker, director, producer, etc.

Piracy isn't causing the downfall of Hollywood. More movies are being made, more artists are breaking out of the "star" mode and making their livings through their art. More people are able to connect to the internet, download a song/movie/game and see if it's to their liking before they buy them. There's plenty of arguments that say that piracy is about underserved customers.

I would suggest you look into those instead of decrying piracy as the source of all evil.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A motion picture makes about 75% of its total earnings from downstream revenues (other than N. AMerican box office) The problem isn't people sneking into theaters its people making (and sometime selling) perfect digital replicas. That is what erodes downstream revenue. It's those revenues that support workers health and retirement plans

I always find it hilarious when people like you rely on this argument, when it was the same folks 30 years ago insisting that the VCR was illegal and was the "boston strangler" to the movie industry.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

he bill is about sites DEDICATED to infringing activity- not containing mostly protected speech.

Well, the sites that were seized by ICE for copyright infringement were mostly protected speech. And they were all potentially "not liable for monetary relief, or for injunctive or other equitable relief" under 17 USC 512. Some probably wouldn't have been found guilty in a civil court.

So, you can understand my concern. ICE is already going after websites that are not just "dedicated to infringing activities." They are taking down blogs, forums, and search engines. There's no indication that COICA (in any form) would prevent that from happening.

And I don't know why I equate getting the intellectual property of another that is offered for sale without paying for it with stealing.

You can also say "stealing" a joke, or "stealing" a kiss, but that doesn't mean you should spend four years in jail for it. (A sentence that is far more severe than actual shoplifting, I might add.)

And, of course, there's the slight inconvenience that copyright law was made for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of workers or industries. It is not meant to reward the "sweat of the brow," but to provide greater public use of works.

The workers behind the camera receive residuals and their health insurance and retirement are derived from downstream revenues. The very revenues eroded by piracy.

The very revenues eroded by the bad business decisions of men in boardrooms. There's not one shred of evidence that stopping piracy would increase downstream revenues. Those aren't being lost to piracy, they're being lost to iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, or Redbox - all of which the legacy industries called "pirates" at some point. And that's not even counting the competition from other entertainment industries, like video games; or the general decline in disposable income due to the economy.

I reject a judgment of wealth or poverty as justification for stealing.

I could also reject a judgement of wealth or poverty as a justification for laws that will almost certainly be used for censorship. I could say, "Piracy drives camera workers into poverty? Tough shit for them."

I could say that, but a) I like those workers (some are my friends), and b) it's a false dichotomy; halting piracy won't save any jobs, and lack of censorship laws won't lose any.

Look, I know how much it sucks to lose your job because the digital revolution made it unnecessary. I used to work in the print industry, and it's been decimated because of digital distribution. Should I blame everything on "piracy?" No - I should blame the people that ran the print shops, who should have seen it coming and adapted. They didn't; they failed; the workers went down with the ship. The jobs lost in the entertainment industries are being lost for exactly the same reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Expect to see some, but it's the same issue that arises with false DMCA takedowns. Copyright violation claims, primarily those with fair use, are somewhat difficult to predict in all but the most extreme cases. The lawsuits are expensive and the pit a well financed entity (government or corporation) against a small business or an individual. It's a big gamble with money most people don't have.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Then where are the lawsuits against the government for false seizure?

The seizures are still in the process of being contested. Not surprising, since ICE never contacted the site owners in any way, until months after the seizures occurred. (Though some aren't fighting because they were never charged with any crime, and are set up unperturbed on domain names outside of Verisign's control.)

You lost your job because of legal obsolescence

...which is the same reason for whatever jobs in the entertainment industry are being lost. They just have piracy to use as a scapegoat for their own failings.

Pity that in doing so, they'll end up passing laws that penalize the technology industries - which is a far bigger sector of the U.S. economy. Not to mention the chilling effects on free speech, and the general harm to the public - which is, ironically, supposed to be the primary beneficiaries of the copyright laws that now make them criminals.

Bills like this aren't good for the public, aren't good for free expression, and won't even help the entertainment industries. They are good for nobody.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don't forget that certain people believe six months after a seizure is enough time to go without a domain. Which makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Think about if you were in jail for six months on a traffic violation, or giving away secrets as a whistleblower.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"the bill is about sites DEDICATED to infringing activity- not containing mostly protected speech. Clearly even you can see the subtle difference. "

What is a "DEDICATED" site though? How much content is required for it to be dedicated? What fraction and what metric?

Clearly, ICE doesn't believe it has to be that much. It's not a stretch to believe that the definition of "dedicated" will broaden over time and be stretched when convenient. It's a vague term that is ripe for abuse.

Even sites that are generally considered "dedicated," like the pirate bay, still contain a large sum of protected/legal content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are not suggesting that pirate bay might have some legitimate free speech defense? Even they wouldn't claim that.

If a neighborhood pawn shop persisted in selling stolen merchandise what percentage of its goods would have to be stolen before the courts shut it down? I don't know the exact number but I doubt it would be a very high percentage. Just because it happens online doesn't mean a different standard should exist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> Their is a notion that a website that offers subscriptions
> and/or is supported by ads that offers the copyrighted works
> of others is entitled to a hearing before an action is taken.

Considering it often takes teams of lawyers, entire trials and a jury to determine what's infringing and what isn't, due process would indeed seem to require at least a hearing to determine that infringement is actually occurring before unilaterally removing a site from the internet.

> As a matter of law, a seizure is analogous to an arrest.

That's quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've heard today. Arrests must be based on probable cause, supported by warrant. Which requires a hearing before a judge, genius.

The only time an arrest can be made without a warrant is if the crime is being committed in the presence of the police. The vast majority of infringement on the net isn't even criminal in nature. It's civil. And for those that are criminal, it's not being done in the presence of the police. The people who are doing it are on the other side of the planet. And no, a cop looking at a web site doesn't legally count as "in the presence of the police". The actual person committing the criminal act has to be there.

> Even if a site had some non-infringing content, if the primary
> purpose is to disseminate copyrighted content it's not entitled
> to cry free speech.

It's entitled to cry whatever it likes. That is *also* a matter of free speech-- a concept on which you could really stand to educate yourself.

> If 10% of the goods in a pawn shop were stolen and that shop
> persisted in selling stolen property, it would be shut down...
> entirely.

No, it wouldn't. The person selling the stolen goods would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned. If that happened to be the owner, he'd have to find someone else to run the shop for him while he did his time, but the shop itself would remain open.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

For rogue sites dedicated to infringing activities it doesn't require an adversarial hearing, it requires a presentation of facts to a judge. There are tens of thousands of infringing sites that would be a slam dunk to prove to a judge are infringing and subject to PROTECT IP.

The procedure to have a site declared a rogue site is substantially the same as one that culminates with an arrest warrant. Evidence of wanton infringement is presented to the judge and he then renders a decision.

A police officer doesn't have to witness the act to make an arrest. He can act on a warrant as described above. In the real world officers make arrests all the time based on evidence. Download an episode of "Cops" and watch what happens when a wife with a bloody nose accuses her husband of beating her.

If you us your pawn shop to sell stolen goods or your home as a crack house they are subject to forfeiture. Look it up.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Jay,

the bill has dropped. It's bipartisan, enjoys broad support and soon become law. Wyden will try to derail it but will fail. The House is working on a companion bill that will breeze through. Game, set, match.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Mike,

I understand that you and the rest of the techdirtbags and sundry piracy apologists hate the fact that it may become harder to get the copyrighted content of others for free. The nerd rage is palpable.

In the example you site, are you suggesting that all or most of the content was not infringing? How come the site owner didn't protest in court?

Not to add to your misery (but I will) Sen. Klobuchar's bill making unlawful streaming a felony has dropped as well. Now maybe you, Gigi Sohn and your other professional apologist friends can get together with Ron Wyden for a good cry.

Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

> for the sole purpose of evading the US judicial system

Guess what? Not everyone in the world is subject to the US judicial system and its laws.

> to defend FOREIGN criminals

So when someone does something in another country that's perfectly legal in their own country but which would be against the law if done in the US, that makes them a de facto criminal? Do you really believe that every time the US passes a law, that everyone on earth is obliged to obey it?

> all kinds of bogus constitutional and due process arguments

Yes, damn that stupid Constitution, always getting in the way of the efficient administration of "justice".

> it's all about entitlement to free content no matter what the cost
> to creative professionals.

And for you, it's all about preserving an outdated way of making a living, for which you think you're entitled and for which the government owes you protection, no matter the cost and no matter how many guaranteed freedoms and constitutional provisions you have to trample in the process.

I swear to god, if we had people like you back in the 1920s, you'd all be whining about how something needs to be done to stop that evil Mr. Ford and his terrible new machine, which is threatening your livelihood as a blacksmith. You'd be petitioning the government to protect your right to make a living banging out horseshoes and whining about how people are going on about bogus constitutional rights and due process and why can't we just shut that damned car company down already!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

It's like you're slow or something. PROTECT IP allows the government to order US credit card companies and US ad networks to desist enabling and monetizing foreign infringers otherwise the current judicial system would take care of business. It allows the government to order search engines not to resolve infringing we addresses. All this happens after an order from a judge. It allows private rights holders to do the same, with the exception of the search engines.

So what if it's legal in their own country. Marijuana is legal in Amsterdam but it doesn't mean an Amsterdam company can legally offer it for sale in the US. Child porn may be legal in some countries. Try selling that here.

If the bill violates the Constitution then the Supreme Court and intermediate courts will rule on it. Just because a piracy apologist says it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it is.

Your last analogy is pure desperation. We are not talking about clinging to b&w silent films and resisting Technicolor "talkies". Who the hell do you think pioneered those innovations? Inherent to the furtherance of creative product is the ability to be compensated for that creativity. It's not to hard if you think about from a different perspective than that of someone who believes he's entitled to get something of value for nothing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

I find it funny that buck lateral talks down to btr1701 here, claiming he doesn't understand these things and calling him a piracy apologist... Apparently buck lateral is new here, and doesn't realize that btr1701 is a federal agent (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/01531214053/weve-trained-tsa-to-search-liquid-instead-bom bs.shtml#c47)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Or are you one of those morons who believes that anyone who stands up for constitutional principles and general notions of freedom and due process must also be infringing?

You're like one of those idiots who screams "You must be a pedophile!" any time any one questions government overreach regarding sex offenders.

Just for the record (not that mouth-breathers like you will believe it), I purchase everything I download through iTunes. I wouldn't even know where to find a torrent, nor do I have a client to obtain them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

In Russia, some writers and publishers attacked a provision for free licenses in a copyright law change proposal. The proposal has been changed so that if the provision is applied to the actual popular free licenses, it would harm Wikipedia et al.

Some of the writers may have understood they shouldn't have had subscribed the petitions, but there is at least one who claims "copyleft" in Russia is a word for "piracy". Well, he also mentioned "free license" talking about how he let copies of his books be distributed for free until U.S. publishers required him to stop it...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Ah, the ad hominem name-calling emerges. The last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

> So what if it's legal in their own country.

Because the US shouldn't be able to impose its laws on the world. Funny how you don't seem to get that.

> Your last analogy is pure desperation.

LOL! No, it was just an analogy. Try losing the puerile melodrama. It reflects poorly on you.

> We are not talking about clinging to b&w silent
> films and resisting Technicolor "talkies".

But you *are* talking about draconian government eforcement of a rigid regime which effectively gives a private industry veto power and control over every technological innovation and advancement that may affect them.

Which, despite your silly attempt to dismiss it, is *exactly like giving the blacksmith industry the ability to veto the Model T and anything that might tend to compete with their horseshoes.

I don't know why you can't acknowledge that the objection is to people taking something of value that doesn't belong to them and making money off of it for themselves. It's NOT about resistance to technological change. Your analogy about Model T's replacing horses is pure gibberish.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

"I don't know why you can't acknowledge that the objection is to people taking something of value that doesn't belong to them and making money off of it for themselves"

How you can't see the dissonance between this and VCR usage with the Sony vs Betamax ruling astounds me.

VCRs - Allowed to exist by the Supreme Court with the concept of time shift. People are allowed to watch TV at a time convenient to them, to record whatever they wanted. MPAA fought and lost (Thankfully!). Made a ton of money off of video tape sales

MP3 players - Fought by RIAA. We now have the iPod and iTunes as a result. Thank goodness they lost.

Bittorrent - Came up as a legal alternative to the central network distribution of filesharing models such as Napster, Bearshare, Grokster, etc. Guess what? It's the standard and it's mainly thanks to the lawsuits of the RIAA and MPAA. Great job breaking the mold, industry!

"The enforcement aspects are US centered. No US credit card companies, no US ad networks, no US search engines. Note the common denominator- US, not French, not Nigerian. "
Absolutely no difference than the French Hadopi laws that are ineffective along with the search, by people, for new alternatives.

Visa, Mastercard, and American Express can't be used for a website donation? Ok, now Flattr will come up as an alternative.

Can't use Google? Ok, take your pick. Google may be great, but if it starts to censor, people WILL revolt against them. Same thing happened to Microsoft, Yahoo, and all of the other companies that didn't recognize when the market changed, to their detriment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Apparently the lesson on ad hominem arguments just whoosed right over you, didn't it, chief?

> The enforcement aspects are US centered. No US
> credit card companies, no US ad networks, no
> US search engines.

That's like saying US airlines can't transport US citizens to Amsterdam because they let people smoke dope. Or credit card companies can't process transactions from Amsterdam because they let people smoke dope and people might be paying for dope with their credit cards.

No one would stand for that. But like everything else these days, once you add "on the internet" to the equation, all the normal rules go right out the window.

> What innovation has been vetoed?

Having trouble reading now, are you? Note that I said "veto and control" not just veto. If you want to build a new DVD player, computer, or anything that displays, saves or stores media, you have to have Hollywood's blessing and conform it to their standards or you won't be able to sell it. "Do it our way or you can't do it at all."

And they pretty much want to elimiate torrents and filesharing altogether. The only thing that has stopped them so far is the practical impossibility of doing so.

And the government enforces this private industry control over innovation. It's rather unprecedented in American history, yet that's where we are.

> Your analogy about Model T's replacing horses
> is pure gibberish.

I suppose if you say it often enough, you can convince even yourself that it's true.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Your airline analogy makes no sense. It would be correct to say it doesn't violate US law to go to a country like Sweden or Spain and download content that is subject to copyright in the US. But if the streaming or downloading is received in the US, it's subject to US law. Just like you can go to Amsterdam and smoke away, but if you mail a sample back to yourself in Peoria don't expect immunity from prosecution.

Re: Re: Re:

But you can expect the professional apologist Astroturf groups like EFF, Public Knowledge, CDT etc to come out in full force to defend FOREIGN criminals with all kinds of bogus constitutional and due process arguments.

I'm sorry. Anyone who claims those three groups are "astroturf" groups immediately loses all credibility. None of those firms can be labeled as such.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Riiiight. Because anyone who thinks copyright and IP laws are completely out of control and getting worse are 'piracy apologists.' You step on my guaranteed rights, and I'll kick your fake rights' teeth in.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> By using 'we're coming after your advertisers
> next' you imply you are either in law enforcement
> or on the IP-litigation side.

If it's law enforcement, then the fool has just admitted to a bright-line violation of the Constitution, targeting private citizens and business for doing nothing but exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Believe what you want about Masnick, but he's never used this site to distribute pirated material or even link to where it can be found.

Even if it were true that he's an apologist for piracy, even if it were true that he supported the notion of "stealing" other people's content and monetizing it, THAT'S NOT A CRIME. Or even a civil violation. It is, however, constitutionally-protected speech.

If being a virulent racist is protected speech (and it is, see American Nazi Party vs. City of Skokie, Illinois), then merely speaking out in favor of copyright infringement certainly is protected. So even if Mike did all the things you accuse him of, targeting him for punitive action by law enforcement would be a gross violation of the US Constitution.

Thank god we haven't reached the point where merely identifying yourself as an IP minimalist is a crime.

Re: Re: Re:

The movie industry makes more than enough money to cover these people's salaries so right off the bat you are inaccurate. The little money Hollywood loses (its been analyzed and it was barely any difference due to piracy) its like a penny in a wishing well for film corporations. Internet sites that this could shut down contribute far more to the economy than Hollywood 3 times over.

Re:

Only, most of these bills are about propping up those who own the works, not those who create them. It's sort of like the war on terror, they'll just keep taking our rights until they're the only ones that have any.

I think maybe you missed a biggie on pp. 7-8. The plaintiff must attempt to bring an in personam action against the owner of the domain name before bringing an in rem action against the domain name itself. For me, this fixes the due process problem.

Re:

Re: Re:

When you want to remain ignorant of the issues, the facts don't matter. Good job AC on proving that. *Thumbs up*

@Fudbuster

1st page - It details about takedowns after the fact. That's not due process, that's censorship. Problem is, the copyright holder is allowed a special privilege with the domain holder not being aware of the action. That's not due process either, that's one sided litigation.

Page 2 - ACTA style seizure with rights holders holding all the cards. This is aimed at pharmaceuticals, but still relevant for other areas of industry. If you're at the border, and the police decide to look at your ipod, odds are, they can talk to the Big Four to see if you have infringing files. Since border police are already known to hassle people and electronics, and your rights are not enforced at the border, there's going to be all sorts of problems that this entails.

Page 7 - Attempt is the big word. You could say "yes, I tried this" and get away with the in rem. This doesn't fix the due process, of allowing a domain hearing or letting someone know of what the heck is going on BEFORE the government gets involved.

Page 8 - Pretty much this doesn't say anything about definitions of infringing sites. This tells us that they'll justify taking down a website for public health reasons without any justification otherwise. I would rather they go through the process of a judicial hearing than be given speedy access to takedowns.

Summary - Basically the ACTA hooked up with the COICA, had a baby, and out popped this infringement on every American who uses the internet today.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

That's not the same as understanding this bill is not needed for the continued growth of the internet.

What's truly amazing is the fact that you seem to encourage these processes, not understanding any of the consequences that have occurred or will occur.

We've lost the high ground on censorship. The internet will become fragmented because of these bad ideas gone wild. And the "whining" about due process, is the same as understanding that private interests should not collude with government interests in censoring some unknown third party.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

better a lawless area than every country trying to make an online fiefdom. France passes laws, holland passes laws, america passes laws and they all make different sites/services unavailable to their people or others.

and no, i don't want america to call the shots. they want copyright perpetuate into infinity.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, umm... I'd really like to get my hands on some of those blues and jazz tracks that are all locked up because some jackhole like you thought longer copyright made sense, so now I can't even legally purchase this music.

What was that about 'latest move, album, etc...'? The crap they put out these days isn't worth wiping my butt with, but keep on fuddin'.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Jay,

You said:

"1st page - It details about takedowns after the fact. That's not due process, that's censorship. Problem is, the copyright holder is allowed a special privilege with the domain holder not being aware of the action. That's not due process either, that's one sided litigation."

Seizures from a legal standpoint are like an arrest of an individual. The government must convince a judge that the site is dedicated to infringing activity. Not has some infringing content... dedicated. No judge is going to allow an action against youtube.com because some halfwit uploaded a tv show.

Page 2 - ACTA style seizure with rights holders holding all the cards. This is aimed at pharmaceuticals, but still relevant for other areas of industry. If you're at the border, and the police decide to look at your ipod, odds are, they can talk to the Big Four to see if you have infringing files. Since border police are already known to hassle people and electronics, and your rights are not enforced at the border, there's going to be all sorts of problems that this entails.

The notion that TSA or ICE or anyone else busy crapping themselves over potential Al Queda retaliation is going to check my iPod for a bootleg copy of "The Kings Speech" is simply laughable and a measure of how desperate you piracy apologists are to continue free access to the creative content of others.

Page 7 - Attempt is the big word. You could say "yes, I tried this" and get away with the in rem. This doesn't fix the due process, of allowing a domain hearing or letting someone know of what the heck is going on BEFORE the government gets involved.

PROTECT IP Act is for foreign websites. Do you know how impossible it is to serve an anonymous criminal actor in a foreign company? And do you know how many of the infringers who were taken down by ICE availed themselves to the US judicial process. I'll spare you the Wikipedia search: Zero. The guys who steal the content of others and monetize it know how the game is played. They don't cry about due process or free speech. The cut their losses and move on to the next criminal enterprise.

Page 8 - Pretty much this doesn't say anything about definitions of infringing sites. This tells us that they'll justify taking down a website for public health reasons without any justification otherwise. I would rather they go through the process of a judicial hearing than be given speedy access to takedowns.

So you advocate allowing the public to continue to be duped into thinking that they are buying the legitimate medicine when they're not for 2-3 years while it winds through the judicial process? What if that was Grandma's cancer medication? I assume you really want copyright cases to drag out like that too so billions of unauthorized copies can be made for free as well?

Summary - Basically the ACTA hooked up with the COICA, had a baby, and out popped this infringement on every American who uses the internet today.

Your conclusion is just as lame as your critique. Just once I'd like to hear one of you piracy apologists offer an alternative solution that protects the right to profit from creativity and balances all other competing interests. But instead I get drivel like this.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right...you get caught up on a fundamental fallacy like "the right to profit", and then you want someone else to fix your problems for you. When you manage to get over the first part, we'll talk about the second.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you are suggesting that I don't have the right to the financial rewards of my innovation and creativity. And actually, I'd like to see the private right of action expanded to invest more of the responsibility for copyright enforcement vested in the rights holder.

FYI, the US is a capitalist society, not socialist or communist so that whole "fundamental fallacy like the right to profit" thing probably won't get a lot of traction. Though it might explain why other countries have such pathetic film and music industries.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

FYI, the US is a capitalist society, not socialist or communist so that whole "fundamental fallacy like the right to profit" thing probably won't get a lot of traction. Though it might explain why other countries have such pathetic film and music industries.

Hmm. I believe you are confused. There is no "right to profit" in a capitalist society at all. If anything, that is more of a socialist or communist concept -- in that a right to make money is provided with the act of labor, rather than as a result of a market transaction.

Under capitalism, you have the right to *seek* to make profit, but no right to profit. That's what a free market is about. A right to profit is the opposite of a free market. A right to seek profit is part of a free market. Understand?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right, because hurling insults makes your arguement so much stronger. First off, there's a huge difference between stealing a car off a lot and "pirating" a song. Namly that when you "pirate" the song you're manufacturing an entirely new copy of it, leaving everyone else with no more and no less than they started out with. When you take the car the dealer is out one car.

That aside, my point still stands. A goververment that grants monopolies is itself going against free market princibles.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Understand that without the ability to profit from one's creativity and innovation, there is a drastic disincentive to create and innovate? And just because a market is subject to a set of rules doesn't mean that competition within that market isn't free. Free does not mean lawless.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Heh, I was just pointing out that the way you argued that it was quite easy to take it any way.

Now, as for this, there's a lot of studies on both sides of the fence, both claiming disincentive to create and claiming that there's still plenty of incentive. It can't really be stated without a shadow of a doubt at the moment that copyright is needed to get people to create.

And yes, there can still be competition within a set of rules, I don't mean to advocate that any rules at all are pointless.

What I will say however, is that it seems that with copyright as it is, as with many many other systems which include rules, people fall in love with the rules so much that the rule itself becomes the be all and end all. It's easy to say "we make these rules to help" or "we make these rules because they're necessary" but eventually, it boils down to "we make rules because we love having rules" and the purpose of the rule and whether or not it works properly is long forgotten.

Yes, illegal activity isn't a free market. But is it illegal because it's bad? Is it illegal because it harms? Or is it illegal because we don't like it?

It often feels like laws such as this get passed not due to necessity, nor due to research, but due to fear, and because 'it's always been that way'

As 'Weird Al' Yankovic so wisely states "It's tradition. That makes it ok"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When that enforcement is counterproductive, harms the rights of consumers, does not help content creators and causes more problems than it solves... you bet your failed musician's career I do.

Everyone look at the sidebar to see what Masnick has really been talking about.

Please do.

And no one has heard of any band you might have tried to attach your chubby self to.

Huh? I don't try to "attach" myself to anyone.

You make your living defending piracy. You have no talent in anything other than the cult of copying.

I love that you have this weird compulsion in which you try to convince yourself of this incorrect assessment by repeating it over and over again.

Even this fringe news collecting blog that pays your mortgage is an unoriginal idea.

If it's so fringe, why do you spend so much time here? If it's fringe, why does it scare you so?

The fact is, you know that I'm not defending piracy. You know that I'm helping musicians and other content creators make money. You know that these new business models work.

And it scares you, because it's going to put you out of business. It's not the "piracy" that scares you. You'd have to be a complete idiot to be scared of that when there are so many easy ways to compete or embrace it and succeed. What you fear is that in such a world, your own talents aren't needed any more.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Seizures from a legal standpoint are like an arrest of an individual. The government must convince a judge that the site is dedicated to infringing activity. Not has some infringing content... dedicated. No judge is going to allow an action against youtube.com because some halfwit uploaded a tv show. "

And you missed the point entirely where I discussed that there is a one sided case against a domain without them having any say in the actions. I don't care what the judge stamps, because we already know that no ability to defend yourself in a court of law, does not justice make.

"The notion that TSA or ICE or anyone else busy crapping themselves over potential Al Queda retaliation is going to check my iPod for a bootleg copy of "The Kings Speech" is simply laughable and a measure of how desperate you piracy apologists are to continue free access to the creative content of others."

Nope, not a piracy apologist. Just a guy who's looking at the consequences of the enforcement angle. But please, use that phrase to your heart's content.

"PROTECT IP Act is for foreign websites. Do you know how impossible it is to serve an anonymous criminal actor in a foreign company? And do you know how many of the infringers who were taken down by ICE availed themselves to the US judicial process. I'll spare you the Wikipedia search: Zero. The guys who steal the content of others and monetize it know how the game is played. They don't cry about due process or free speech. The cut their losses and move on to the next criminal enterprise."

Do you know how impossible it is to actually have people respect dumb policy? Why the hell should I, a local citizen in the US, care about a website I won't access unless I'm in that country or state? And if that's the case, what stops the law from being used HERE, in the US?

I've been following the process since they started last July. There's been no affidavits signed for the July takedowns, merely the November ones, because the blog sites bitched a fit. The original 9 sites taken down were given no warnings, no complaints were filed, no affidavits, nothing. Yeah, due process my rear end. And there's at least three places that are going to fight.

Onsmash and rapgodfathers - music blogs where the affidavits were piss poor with evidence and only had the industry's say so. So pay attention, we'll see how this goes. ESPECIALLY when the so called content had been authorized by the very same people that took it down. Left hand, meet right hand. *slow clap*

"So you advocate allowing the public to continue to be duped into thinking that they are buying the legitimate medicine when they're not for 2-3 years while it winds through the judicial process? What if that was Grandma's cancer medication? I assume you really want copyright cases to drag out like that too so billions of unauthorized copies can be made for free as well? "

News flash, they aren't.

People understand that Canada has cheaper priced medicine. That's actually the fault of patent law. Remember how I said this had ACTA written all over it? Come on, keep up here. There's plenty of reasons people went to Canada for medicine. It's cheaper by far. The problem comes in when again, a top down organization such as Pfizer, make medicine too expensive. That is not something that the border should be looking to control. I sure as hell want my cheaper medicine.

Trying to equate medicines from out of the country as automatically bad is just poor form. So is trying to say copyright cases, where people's blogs, sense of community, and possibly domain through accusation, will drag out the same way that some of the medicine cases in this country. But it doesn't take a lot to figure out that those last two pages are all about someone else's bottom line. So again, the issue isn't about "free". It's about cheaper goods for the betterment of society.

I find it disappointing you can't (or won't) see that.

"Your conclusion is just as lame as your critique. Just once I'd like to hear one of you piracy apologists offer an alternative solution that protects the right to profit from creativity and balances all other competing interests"

As others have mentioned, you don't have a "right to profit". You can try and fail on your own merits. That's what "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of happiness" is all about.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Like you actually care LOL. Most of the stuff you guys rip off is less than a couple years old."

You just cut and re-paste this retort every few days.
The fact is-- it's a crock.
I'm not sure who you're taking to be "you guys", but as has been made clear to you on multiple occasions, there are plenty of people who are opposed to both the current legislative proposals, and the general direction IP has taken in recent decades, on the basis of principle alone.
The length of copyright simply isn't sound economics. The current length provides a disincentive to heirs and subsequent right-holders to produce substantive new work, because current law provides ongoing income without work.

You've had many opportunities to provide a rational argument addressing this issue, but you only reply with vapid snark. Until you provide said argument, we'll have to assume you don't have one.

So after this all that is left.....

So after this all that is left.....is to make a law granting them the right to kill you right at home for downloading a usic tune.....YUP they have to kill all the kids in order to stop piracy , its the only way mom and dad to get rid of this problem. AND we'll make hte parents indentured slaves by making them pay 50% of there pay checks for life to joe biden( in case you dont know he is hte chief economic terrorist of the united states of stupid.

Corporate Welfare

This proposal is corporate welfare on a grand scale. The IP maximalists will not stop until they have a full police state established, designed to favor their interests. Special interests always want the government to do their dirty work for them, at government expense. Read up about the Roman Catholic Inquisition sometime. The thousands of murders were actually done by the government at the behest of the church. For a religion that is much concerned about the injustice of the Romans killing one man at the behest of the Pharisees, that is pretty rich. Special interests have been successfully getting governments to do their dirty work for them for two thousand years and counting.

Have you Americans noticed that you are widely hated around the world? Have you also noticed the fact that your democratic principles are so loved? Hypocrisy will get you hatred. Learn the lesson. It has been out there for thousands of years.

Re: Corporate Welfare

Which way do you want it. You cry about the government being a private police force(like Operation In Our Sites) and then snivel about about private right of action where rights holders must defend their own copyright.

I infer from your comments that you are not an American. That's fine, hate away. But instead why don't you simply pirate the films produced in your own country and ignore those of the hated Americans? Oh yeah, that's right. You don't have a film industry, unless you live in Bollywood.

Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare

Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare

Nigeria, china, and bollywood. Without as many copyright concerns. S. Africa, with apartheid diversification. Singapore, that actually serves meals for movies. I could go on, but I doubt from your other responses, you will acknowledge these examples.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare

And nothing in the way of a rebuttal, just words brought together as a form of attack. Bravo. Care for an actual debate of the facts, or just wasting time with ineffective comments meant for an emotional, instead of logical, response?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Corporate Welfare

"And those players together account for want percentage of global motion picture receipts?"

The thing you should be looking at is number of views, not receipts. That tells the actual story. Percentage wise by population the US film industry is losing ground to other nations. As china and india becomes more industrialized and educated you will see better films being made, and in greater quantity, reducing the US film numbers even more.

Re: Re: Corporate Welfare

Oh, one area where the law backs down is that it no longer focuses on seizing domains. That is, it no longer talks about requiring registrars and registers to be subject to this law. But the reason they've done so is because they say that Homeland Security's successful domain seizing means that such powers would be redundant...

Here's my take on that. They took the part out that allowed for in rem forfeitures as a first course of action. They are claiming that leaving it in would be redundant since they already have this power. However, the next section about in personam jurisdiction makes clear that a regular civil suit against the owner of the domain name must be filed first. This means that they can't start out with an in rem forfeiture, i.e., they can't just seize the domain name first. While they would still ostensibly have the in rem forfeiture power under the forfeiture statutes, this new Act would supersede that power under the doctrine of lex specialis. This special statute concerning only sites dedicated to infringement would take precedence over the general forfeiture statutes. This means that the defendant will be able to challenge the claims against him before the domain name gets taken down. In other words, your Due Process and First Amendment concerns are no longer an issue. I think you should be celebrating.

I get that you don't like the personal right of action, but there already are personal rights of action. And keep in mind those actions are in personam before they can be in rem. This is really no different than the procedures under the ACPA that have existed for over a decade. Even with the personal right of action, Due Process and the First Amendment are still satisfied. Again, a reason to celebrate.

The bill claims it includes "safeguards," but those "safeguards" are that after the court order has been issued and all the third party service providers (payment process, ad networks, ISPs, search engines) have been required to block service to the site, the site can "petition the court to suspend or vacate the order." That seems a bit late in the process, doesn't it?

But the order cannot come until after a regular civil suit has been filed against the owner of the domain name. The safeguards give the domain name owners more remedies, like if for whatever reason they defaulted in the district court. This is a good thing.

That's what it all sounds like to me. Without seeing the actual text, it's hard to say for sure though.

Re:

I should add that ex parte seizures are still possible in a regular in personam action, however the rules are different than they are with a seizure pursuant to an in rem forfeiture, which is what the seizures have been to date. In an in rem forfeiture, they have to show that the domain names are property used to commit or facilitate criminal copyright infringement. The ex parte seizures here would fall under Section 503 of the Copyright Act, and I don't think a domain name would fall under "articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced" as the statute allows to be seized. In other words, there wouldn't be any ex parte seizures of domain names in the in personam actions. Instead, there'd be preliminary injunctions, but those would be issued only after the domain name owner has had a chance to have a say.

Re: Re:

Yep ineffective ex officio powers given to private parties for nothing other than control.

Plain as day that this legislation is ineffective on multiple levels.

Sad you believe it isn't. All that will happen? The US debt increases for the cost of the raids, seizures, and litigation. I guess all of this sadly rings hollow in the name of artists that actually USE the technology to their advantage and economic benefit.

The Gospel

Look who was supporting the previous COICA bill. The usual suspects of the MAFIAA are there, but the plain-old Mafia is there too. The funniest corporate supporter has to be the Gospel Music Association.

If one is "stealing" Gospel songs, do they not have bigger problems with a higher authority? On the other hand, would not that higher authority want ones to spread the gospel, especially with the poor who may not be able to afford those songs? True believers of the gospel should be the biggest promoters of unfettered access to the gospel, in any form.

Re: The Gospel

Some Important Caveats

The new bill's private right of action is indeed troubling, but it's extremely important to note that, according to the summary, it would not allow rights holders to obtain court orders disabling domain names or censoring search results for allegedly infringing sites. The private right of action would only apply to ad networks and payment processors. A lawful site can still operate meaningfully for a limited duration pending an adversarial hearing without being able to earn ad revenue or process payments.

Also, if the new definition of websites "dedicated to infringing activities" is, as claimed in the summary, substantially narrower than the definition contained in COICA, perhaps the new bill will be properly viewed as less worrisome than its predecessor. The breadth of COICA was arguably its single biggest red flag; if the new bill would ensnare fewer potentially innocent sites, it stands to reason that it's less of a threat (although still arguably antithetical) to free speech.

Re: Re: The "Protect" Act

Since we've seen many of the "seized" domains simply move to new sites, the PROTECT IP Act also says that any site that just moves to a new domain, the same draconian censorship requirements apply to those new sites as well."

Even sites with domains registered outside of the US? ...Of course. They already did that a while back; Spain, wasn't it?
Whatever. They can't do anything to the internet. Even if they do start seizing domain names all over the world, we'll just get something like MAFIAAFire that redirects to IP addresses. Sort of a second DNS for censored sites, if you will.

This is going to be hilarious. The US government will trample other nations' sovereignties, seize any amount of internet infrastructure (including ICANN, no doubt), and it still won't get results.

Re: Didn't I read a book about this in highschool...

Reread the story with the above substitutions, and you would have a good idea of where things might be heading.... Now if the **AA could just get those mechanical dogs working correctly, they could have them track down and kill any IP thieves out there...

Alyona Show

What if corporates spy on you to make sure you obey copyright? Singing in the shower, humming a copyrighted tune in the park, copying a trademarked character off the TV and onto a piece of paper, everything you do even if it's not computer/internet related are being watching and listened by the RIAA/MPAA through surveillance cameras in your house, wiretapping through your phones, hidden microphones inside objects like trees.

Should the RIAA tell the Government to make it mandatory to have DRM chips implanted in your brain?

Move to the wilderness, fish with your bare hands, build a fie out of sticks. It's the only way to kill corporatism. We don't need corporate material things, not even corporate food. Nature is your food and shelter.

Re:

I never claimed that. If you had even bothered to read the bill you'd have known its requirements already. Instead, you don't bother to read it so the facts don't interfere with your assumptions and biases.

Safeguards

[i["The bill claims it includes "safeguards," but those "safeguards" are that after the court order has been issued and all the third party service providers (payment process, ad networks, ISPs, search engines) have been required to block service to the site, the site can "petition the court to suspend or vacate the order." That seems a bit late in the process, doesn't it? "[/i]

Unless TRO's work differently in federal courts than I remember them, this claim is misleading and false. A plain language reading of the act clearly states that the AG or the plaintiff [b]must[/b] conduct due diligence to locate and notify the defendant upon the [b]commencement[/b] of the action. That is at the beginning. Not before or after the order is issued.

Upon this notification, the defendant has the right to dispute the action in court. The standards for granting a TRO require that there is some uncurable harm that would occur if the order was not put into place until a formal judgment.

If the AG or plaintiff fails to conduct due diligence, the defendant can argue that the order should be thrown out based on their misconduct and so the defendant can get a fair opportunity to defend themselves

First Ammendment

Honestly, if you can have a porn store on each corner in the city under the pretense of "freedom of speech" then on what basis do they think that they can enforce something that seems to so clearly impede that first amendment right. The beauty of the land of the free is that you can any stupid thing you want. The idea behind the internet is that anyone can. To legally censor american contents seems like a breach of our rights. What rights of ours will they strip away next?

Re: First Ammendment

If it actually is black and white infringement its not your speech. It doesn't fall under freedom of speech if it doesn't include any of your own actual expression. There's is a very broad fair use defense that specifically protect use of copyright that falls under freedom of speech.

It doesn't impede the first amendment, it doesn't fall under it at all.

so what will we do?

So...are we exactly just going to sit around and do nothing as this is happening?
Come on people, even Anonymous is doing something.
The American people, we complain but we do nothing! mindless drones when it comes to it.